Research seeks broader support for arts funding
at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies

Arts and cultural institutions are like fingerprints. Their presence represents a community’s unique cultural identity. Neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas often point first to their arts and cultural landscape when promoting their high quality of life. A robust arts community is as important to a region’s economic health as education, housing and other key amenities.

As arts infrastructure grows in importance, communities are taking a closer look at programs to provide sustainable funding that will support and expand their arts and cultural institutions. The market has so far failed at consistently supporting the risktaking inherent in creative nonprofit enterprises and the bold acts of inclusion and accessibility that would attract broader, more diverse audiences.

Public support strengthens the capacity of local arts providers. It allows them the resources to develop new activities that encourage broadbased participation. It brings new audiences together with old, helping develop a shared sense of community.

Art serves a public good. Yet shrinking funding and rising operational costs are making it nearly impossible for many arts and cultural institutions to keep their doors open.

Recognizing these challenges, metropolitan Atlanta business and civic leaders have begun exploring options for developing sustainable arts funding says Michael Rushton (pictured above), an associate professor of public administration and urban studies. In a September 2003 report for Research Atlanta, Rushton began to look at whether taxes could be used to support the arts in the metro area. [“Will Atlantans support a tax for the arts?” The Briefing, Research Issue 2003]

In his latest Research Atlanta report, Sustainable Funding for the Arts: What can Atlanta learn from the Detroit experience?, Rushton provides the first known detailed empirical examination of voting patterns for arts funding in the United States. He does this by matching Census Tract data to the precinct-level results of Proposal K, a failed referendum on arts funding in Detroit. Graduate student Wenbin Xiao provided research support.

What lessons can Atlanta learn from the Detroit vote? In November 2002, Rushton writes, voters in two Detroit counties rejected a proposed increase in their property taxes, a portion of which was for 17 major arts and cultural institutions with the remainder returned to the local communities where the taxes would have been raised. The vote was close.

“Metro Detroit’s media reported four consistent objections to the proposal,” says Rushton. “Voters had defeated a similar culture tax in 2000. They felt the arts should be market driven, and that low-income residents who would be taxed would have neither the time nor the resources to visit the institutions. They objected that metro Detroit residents who weren’t being taxed – those outside the two counties – would benefit.”

Rushton uses Census and polling data to profile the type of voters who supported Proposal K, as well as those who did not. “Our estimates suggest that the person most likely to vote ‘yes’ on Proposal K was an African American who rented his or her residence in an area close to Detroit’s cultural center. This voter holds at least a bachelor’s degree, does not generally drive or own a car, and is likely to vote the Democratic ticket,” he says.

“Income, the value of owner-occupied housing, gender, age or parental status did not appear to have a significant impact on a person’s vote, one way or another.”

Rushton ends the report with conclusions for Atlanta drawn from Detroit’s experience.

The full report and previous studies are available online at www.researchatlanta.org.